Legal Opinion

Eberhart v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided April 7, 1970No. 45150PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Deen, Judge.

1. “The provisions of the Code, § 38-1806, that the testimony of a witness who swears wilfully and knowingly falsely is to be disregarded unless corroborated, where applicable, is required to be charged in the absence of a written request. But to make it applicable it must appear, among other things, that the witness admits, on the trial, that he wilfully and knowingly swore falsely, or the testimony must be such as to render the purpose to falsify manifest.” Smith v. State, 74 Ga. App. 777 (2) (41 SE2d 541). For an example of wilful falsification see Martin v. State, 93 Ga. App.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Smith v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947
  2. Tanner v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
  3. Cothran v. ForsythSupreme Court of Georgia · 1882
  4. Holley v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
  5. Gavan v. EllsworthSupreme Court of Georgia · 1872

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Hill v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
  2. Martin v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
  3. Bentley v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
  4. Welborn v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
  5. Curry v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1980

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API